Paul Oliver alleges that Abercrombie, which operates at least 44stores in the state, relies on an overtime calculation thatviolates state law. The state law requires that employees receiveovertime wages which are at least one-and-a-half times the regularrate.

AUDIENCE INC: Faces Class Action in California Over IPO-------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that Audience Inc. raised $91.5million in an IPO at $17 per share, a price inflated by false andmisleading statements in its registration statement andprospectus, a class action claims in Santa Clara County Court.

The Quebec Superior Court approved the settlement on Nov. 27 in asuit launched by Option consommateurs, a Quebec consumer rightsgroup.

The Brick's "Do not pay for 15 months" program in fact required aC$35 annual membership fee.

The furniture chain has agreed to reimburse customers who usedthis program before May 1, 2010.

Customers who made purchases before May 1, 2009, will receivefunds directly by mail in January. Other qualified customers mustfirst complete a form on the Web sitehttp://www.brickrecourscollectif.comas of the new year.

The Edmonton-based company earned C$18.7 million in profits in itslatest quarter on C$368.5 million of revenues.

It operates 162 corporate stores, down from 173 a year ago.

Toronto-based Leon's Furniture Ltd. announced earlier this monththat it would purchase The Brick for C$700 million.

Leon's said the deal would enhance the competitiveness of bothchains in an increasingly gritty retail environment even thoughboth banners will continue to fly separately.

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Awaits Decision in "Guzman" Class Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Bridgepoint Education, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on itsmotion to dismiss a class action lawsuit initiated by BettyGuzman, according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended September 30, 2012.

In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit againstthe Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies inthe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.The complaint is entitled Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.,et al, and alleges that the defendants engaged inmisrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts torecruit and retain students. The complaint asserts a putativeclass period of March 1, 2005, through the present. In March2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,which was granted by the Court with leave to amend in October2011.

In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaintasserting similar claims and the same class period, and thedefendants filed another motion to dismiss. In May 2012, theCourt granted the University of the Rockies' motion to dismiss andgranted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed bythe Company and Ashford University. The Court also granted theplaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. In August2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint assertingsimilar claims and the same class period. The second amendedcomplaint seeks unspecified monetary relief, disgorgement of allprofits, various other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees. Thedefendants filed a motion to strike portions of the second amendedcomplaint, which is currently pending with the court.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends tovigorously defend against it. However, because of the manyquestions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of thislegal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on theinformation available to the Company at present, it cannotreasonably estimate a range of loss for this action andaccordingly has not accrued any liability associated with thisaction.

On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed inthe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California byDonald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devineand Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false andmaterially misleading statements regarding the Company's businessand financial results, specifically the concealment ofaccreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaintasserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011, to July6, 2012. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in thesame court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012, making similarallegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine.The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemmingfrom May 3, 2011, to July 12, 2012. Finally, on July 26, 2012,another purported securities class action complaint was filed inthe same court by David Stein against the same defendants basedupon the same general set of allegations and class period. Thecomplaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder and seek unspecified monetary relief, interest, andattorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions wereconsolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed theCity of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund and the TeamstersLocal 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs.The Company has not yet responded to these complaints andanticipates that a consolidated amended complaint will be filed inDecember 2012.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against theconsolidated action. However, because of the many questions offact and law that may arise, the outcome of these legalproceedings is uncertain at this point. Based on informationavailable to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimatea range of loss and accordingly has not accrued any liabilityassociated with these actions.

On October 24, 2012, a class action complaint was filed inCalifornia Superior Court by former employee Marlo Montano namingthe Company and Ashford University as defendants. The complaintasserts a putative class consisting of former employees who wereterminated in January 2012 and July 2012 as a result of a masslayoff, relocation or termination and alleges that the defendantsfailed to comply with the notice and payment provisions of theCalifornia WARN Act. A substantially similar complaint was alsofiled in the same court on the same day by Austin Dilts makingsimilar allegations and asserting the same putative class. Thecomplaints seek back pay, the cost of benefits, penalties andinterest on behalf of the putative class members, as well as otherequitable relief and attorneys' fees.

The Company and Ashford University are currently evaluating theseactions and intend to vigorously defend against them. Because ofthe many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome ofthese legal proceedings is uncertain at this point. Based oninformation available to the Company at present, it cannotreasonably estimate a range of loss and accordingly has notaccrued any liability associated with these actions.

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Wage and Hour Suit Deal Paid Out in Sept.----------------------------------------------------------------Bridgepoint Education, Inc.'s court-approved settlement of aconsolidated wage and hour lawsuit was paid out during the threemonths ended September 30, 2012, according to the Company'sNovember 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In February 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filedas a class action lawsuit naming the Company, Ashford University,LLC, and certain employees as defendants. The complaint was filedin the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego andwas captioned Stevens v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Thecomplaint generally alleged that the plaintiffs and similarlysituated employees were improperly denied certain wage and hourprotections under California law.

In April 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed asa class action lawsuit naming the Company and Ashford University,LLC, as defendants. The complaint was filed in the Superior Courtof the State of California in San Diego, and was captioned Moorev. Ashford University, LLC. The complaint generally alleged thatthe plaintiff and similarly situated employees were improperlydenied certain wage and hour protections under California law.

In May 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as aclass action lawsuit naming the Company as a defendant. Thecomplaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia in San Diego on May 6, 2011, and was captioned Sanchezv. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. The complaint generally allegedthat the plaintiff and similarly situated employees wereimproperly denied certain wage and hour protections underCalifornia law.

In October 2011, the cases were consolidated because they involvedcommon questions of fact and law, with Stevens v. BridgepointEducation, Inc. designated as the lead case.

In April 2012, the Company entered into a settlement agreementwith the plaintiffs of the cases to settle the claims on a class-wide basis. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, theCompany agreed to pay an amount to settle the plaintiffs' claims,plus any related payroll taxes. The Company accrued a $10.8million expense in connection with the settlement agreement duringthe nine months ended September 30, 2012.

On August 24, 2012, the Court granted final approval of the classaction settlement and entered a final judgment in accordance withthe terms of the settlement agreement. This settlement was paidout during the three months ended September 30, 2012.

There is no precedence to this kind of suits in the country, whichin this case has been technically termed as a "representativeaction".

"This is a class action suit and any shareholder interested in itcan apply to the court within the next 15 days with their ownclaims," a lawyer with Luthra & Luthra, the legal firmrepresenting TCI, told DNA.

Besides Coal India as an entity, all its 17 directors, its largestshareholder (the Indian government) and its seven miningsubsidiaries have been made party to the suit.

TCI, which owns 1.007% of Coal India as at September-end, is thesecond largest investor in the mining major.

If you don't have an idea how much to claim from Coal India,here's a clue: TCI has held Coal India and the others responsiblefor an estimated INR2,15,250 crore of losses suffered by thecompany by not selling coal at market rates to linkage customerssince it went public.

"Additionally, in our plaint, we have sought a decree for a sum ofRs 9,942.18 crore for the loss in the value of holdings of TCI andperpetual injunction restraining the government from interferingwith the administration of the company," the lawyer said.

TCI has also prayed for attachment of Coal India's properties ifthe judgment goes in its favor.

The Companies Bill 2011 approved by the Union Cabinet in Novemberprovides for class-action lawsuits under Section 245 and 246,allowing a large number of people with common grievances to sue orbe sued as a group.

"The foundation of this representative action is theseallegations. The government of India is making an undueinterference in the fixing and regulation of price of coal. Thefact is that the price of coal fixed by them is much below itsmarket value, as a result of which the first defendant (CoalIndia) is suffering loss. This price fixing or regulation is mademostly in case of fuel supply agreements.

"Secondly, there is a large-scale theft or misappropriation ofthis resource, which is also a cause of loss to the company, it isalleged. The above allegations are denied by Sudipto Sarkar,learned senior advocate appearing for the first defendant," JudgeIP Mukerji had said while ordering the institution of the classaction suit in October.

While no interim order was given, the court directed filing ofaffidavit-in-opposition by November 30.

The next hearing of the case is on December 12.

CREDIT SUISSE: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Trade Loss--------------------------------------------------------------Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that Credit Suisse AGdemanded on Nov. 26 that a New York federal court throw out aclass action accusing the bank of understating the risks of anexchange-traded note it issued that led to $340 million in rapidlosses earlier this year.

In its motion to dismiss, the financial services giant tried torefute investors' claims, stressing that it had provided explicitwarnings of the inherent risks in the security's offeringdocuments, particularly explaining that it was not designed forlong-term investment.

U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren will decide whether to approve asettlement reached in August. A joint request by the parties thatincluded details of the deal was filed earlier this month.

Workers alleged Creekstone wasn't paying them for all the timethey worked. Creekstone said it paid for all time worked,including overtime.

Under the proposed $195,000 settlement, about $110,000 would besplit among the 144 class members. The amount paid each workerwould be based on how often the employee worked during the three-year claim period.

Most of the rest of the settlement would go to workers' attorneys.

DENDREON CORP: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Wash. Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Dendreon Corporation is still awaiting a court decision on itsmotion to dismiss a consolidated securities suit pending inWashington, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company and three current and former officers are nameddefendants in a consolidated putative securities class actionproceeding filed in August 2011 with the United States DistrictCourt for the Western District of Washington (the "DistrictCourt") under the caption In re Dendreon Corporation Class ActionLitigation, Master Docket No. C 11-1291 JLR. Lead Plaintiff, SanMateo County Employees Retirement Association, purports to stateclaims for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of aclass of persons who purchased the Company's common stock betweenApril 29, 2010, and August 3, 2011. A consolidated amendedcomplaint was filed on February 24, 2012. In general, thecomplaints allege that the defendants issued materially false ormisleading statements concerning the Company, its finances,business operations and prospects with a focus on the marketlaunch of PROVENGE and related forecasts concerning physicianadoption, and revenue from sales of PROVENGE as reflected in theCompany's August 3, 2011 release of its financial results for thequarter ended June 30, 2011. The Company and other defendantsfiled a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint onApril 27, 2012, and that motion is fully briefed and awaitingfurther action by the Court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SECfiling.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of that motion orof these lawsuits; however, the Company believes the claims lackmerit and intends to defend the claims vigorously.

Dendreon Corporation -- http://www.dendreon.com/-- is a biotechnology company that engages in the discovery, development,and commercialization of novel therapeutics to enhance cancertreatment options for patients. The Company's product portfolioincludes active cellular immunotherapy and small molecule productcandidates to treat a range of cancers. The Company offersPROVENGE (sipuleucel-T), an autologous cellular immunotherapy forthe treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic,metastatic, castrate-resistant (hormone-refractory), and prostatecancer. The Company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered inSeattle, Washington.

The window fittings can break. This can cause the window to fall,posing an injury hazard to consumers.

G-U Hardware has received two reports of windows falling,including one report of a broken thumb.

This recall involves tilt-turn stay arm and side-hung sash hingeadjustable window fittings. They are used to attach a window to aframe and primarily sold for use in commercial buildings. Thefittings have clamps, locking pins and stainless steel springs."G-U" and the component number are stamped at the ends of thefitting. The recalled G-U Hardware window fittings have thefollowing model names, and model and component numbers:

The recalled products were manufactured in Turkey and sold by G-UHardware directly to hardware wholesalers and window manufacturersnationwide from October 2002 to December 2011 for between $7 and$26.

Contact G-U Hardware to arrange for the free replacement andinstallation of new window fittings. For additional information,contact GU Hardware toll-free at (855) 355-8810 from 7:30 a.m. to12:00 p.m. and from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time Mondaythrough Thursday; and from 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and from 1:00p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time Friday, or visit the firm's Website at http://www.ak-warning.com/

HSBC BANK: Settles Bankers' Overtime Class Action for $15.6-Mil.----------------------------------------------------------------Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that HSBC Bank USA NA hasagreed to pay $15.6 million to resolve a putative class actionalleging the company withheld overtime wages from some of itsbankers, managers and specialists, according to a proposedsettlement filed on Nov. 26 in New York federal court.

The plaintiffs' class representatives asked the court forpreliminary approval of their settlement, as well as conditionalcertification for four subclasses of employees who worked for HSBCin New York, California, Connecticut and New Jersey, sayingefficiency weighed in favor of a settlement.

The shareholders, led by several public pension funds, accuse thebank of turning its chief investment office into a "secret hedgefund." The move blew up in the bank's face when a trader known asthe "London whale" cost it some $6 billion on bad credit-defaultswap index trades.

The JPMorgan investors, led by the Arkansas Teacher RetirementSystem, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the state ofOregon, also named former chief investment officer Ina Drew, chieffinancial officer Douglas Braunstein and corporate and investmentbanking co-CEO Michael Cavanagh in the complaint, alleging that"JPMorgan senior management made a conscious, strategic decisionto use the CIO for proprietary trading in pursuit of short-termprofits."

The complaint takes particular aim at JPMorgan's decision not tocreate a liquidity reserve to backstop the Bruno Iksil -- thewhale -- portfolio. "Because the company never took the liquidityreserve it was required to have taken, the company's net incomewas overstated by at least $2 billion each quarter during theclass period, rendering JPMorgan's financial statements materiallyfalse."

LIVE NATION: Canadian Courts OK Resale Market Claims Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. received final approvals from allprovinces of its settlement of resale market claims in classaction lawsuits filed in Canada, according to the Company'sNovember 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In February 2009, five putative consumer class action complaintswere filed in various provinces of Canada against TicketsNow,Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. and Premium Inventory, Inc.All of the cases allege essentially the same set of facts andcauses of action. Each plaintiff purports to represent a classconsisting of all persons who purchased a ticket fromTicketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. or TicketsNow from February2007 to present and alleges that Ticketmaster conspired to diverta large number of tickets for resale through the TicketsNow Website at prices higher than face value. The plaintiffscharacterize these actions as being in violation of Ontario'sTicket Speculation Act, the Amusement Act of Manitoba, theAmusement Act of Alberta or the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.The Ontario case contains the additional allegation thatTicketmaster's and TicketsNow's service fees violate anti-scalpinglaws. Each lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages onbehalf of the class.

In February 2012, the parties entered into a settlement agreementthat will resolve all of the resale market claims. The courtapproval process for the settlement has been completed, with finalapprovals given in all provinces.

As of September 30, 2012, the Company has accrued its bestestimate of the probable costs associated with the resale marketclaims of this matter, the full amount of which was funded by anescrow established in connection with Ticketmaster's 2008acquisition of TicketsNow.

While it is reasonably possible that a loss related to the primarymarket claims of this matter could be incurred by the Company in afuture period, the Company does not believe that a loss isprobable of occurring at this time. Considerable uncertaintyremains regarding the validity of the claims and damages assertedagainst the Company. As a result, the Company is currently unableto estimate the possible loss or range of loss for the primarymarket claims of this matter. The Company says it intends tocontinue to vigorously defend all claims in all of the actions.

LIVE NATION: Ticketing Fees Suit Parties in Talks to Modify Deal----------------------------------------------------------------Parties to the class action lawsuit over ticketing fees continueto discuss potential modifications to their settlement agreement,according to Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s November 5, 2012,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in theSuperior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges toonline customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failureto disclose on its Web site that the charges contain a profitcomponent is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim forviolation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") andsought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection withonline ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) theamount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for deliveryof those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a firstamended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative classaction and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's websitedisclosures in respect of its ticket order processing feesconstitute false advertising in violation of California's FalseAdvertising Law. On this new claim, the amended complaint seeksrestitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of orderprocessing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicableperiod. In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motionfor leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claimsthat (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionableunder the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practicesfurther violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to whichTicketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruledTicketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court grantedcertification of a class on the first and second causes of action,which alleges that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of aprofit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processingfees. The class would consist of California consumers whopurchased tickets through Ticketmaster's Web site from 1999 topresent. The Court denied certification of a class on the thirdand fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster'sshipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high. InMarch 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate withthe California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a motionfor reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certificationorder. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs'Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class certificationorder, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition forWrit of Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted theplaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the SuperiorCourt to vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motionto certify a national class and enter a new order grantingplaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first andsecond claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motionfor Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the SuperiorCourt, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion forSummary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted byTicketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion toDecertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreementproviding for the settlement of the litigation and the resolutionof all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined toapprove the settlement in its then-current form. Litigationcontinued, and in September 2011, the Court granted in part anddenied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. Theparties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which wasapproved preliminarily, but in September 2012 the Court declinedto grant final approval. In doing so, the court identifiedpotential modifications to the settlement, and the partiescontinue to discuss such potential modifications and thepossibility of a revised settlement agreement.

Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledgedany violations of law or liability in connection with the matter.

As of September 30, 2012, the Company has accrued $35.4 million,its best estimate of the probable costs associated with thesettlement. This liability includes an estimated redemption rate.Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate andthe actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the finalsettlement amount; however, the Company does not expect thisdifference to be material.

LUCKY BRAND: Text-Spam Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Nod-----------------------------------------------------------------Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a California judgeon Nov. 26 gave a preliminary nod to a nearly $10 million classaction settlement between Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., itsmarketing subcontractors and a nationwide class of consumers whoaccused them of text-spamming them as part of a 2008 back-to-school promotion.

All persons who received promotional texts advertising discountedLucky Jeans between Aug. 24 and Sept. 15, 2008, will be entitledto up to $100 under the deal.

Meyer has received 97 reports of the pan's glass lids breaking orshattering. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Kirkland Signature six-quart, black, hard-anodized aluminum saute pans with glass lids. The tempered glasslids have a stainless steel rim and handle. The pan is about 3inches deep and the pan and lid each measure about 12 inches indiameter. "Kirkland Signature," "6 QT/5.6 L" and "Made inThailand" are printed on the bottom of the saute pan. Pictures ofthe recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and soldexclusively at Costco Wholesale stores in the San Francisco Bayarea and in the Northeast from May 2012 through October 2012 forabout $35.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled pans andglass lids and return them to any Costco store for a full refund.Costco is contacting its customers directly. Costco may bereached toll-free at (877) 782-8242 from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or online athttp://www.costco.com/and click on Recalls for more information.

NEW YORK: Scheindlin to Decide on Stop-and-Frisk Class Action-------------------------------------------------------------Robert Gearty, writing for New York Daily News, reports that afederal judge was not happy to learn on Nov. 27 she would be theone to decide the legality of the NYPD's hugely controversialstop-and-frisk program, as opposed to a jury.

"Either way the judge is going to be attacked," said ManhattanFederal Judge Shira Scheindlin. "It's not a verdict of thecommunity and I thought that would have been helpful for a caselike this."

Last May, Judge Scheindlin said there was "overwhelming evidence"thousands of stop-and-frisks were unlawful when she decided togrant the lawsuit class action status.

The case is one of three ongoing lawsuits challenging aspects ofthe NYPD's stop-and-frisk program -- this one focusing on streetstops.

More than 80% of the 2.8 million people subjected to stop-and-frisks from 2004 to 2009 were black or Latino, according to JudgeScheindlin's ruling. The city denies the stops are improper.

One of the plaintiff's lawyers, Darius Charney, said the soleissue in the case is the constitutionality of the stop-and-friskprogram, so a federal judge was in the best position to decidethat.

"We want this case decided as expeditiously as possible," he said.

The trial is set to begin March 2013.

NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Awaits Final OK of Securities Suit Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------NextWave Wireless Inc. is awaiting final approval of itssettlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedSeptember 29, 2012.

On September 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned"Sandra Lifschitz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others SimilarlySituated, Plaintiff, v. NextWave Wireless Inc. et al.,Defendants," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of California against the Company and certain of itsofficers. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made false andmisleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The lawsuit seeks unspecifieddamages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive,equitable or other relief on behalf of a purported class ofpurchasers of the Company's common stock during the period fromMarch 30, 2007, to August 7, 2008. A second putative class actionlawsuit captioned "Benjamin et al. v. NextWave Wireless Inc. etal." was filed on October 21, 2008, alleging the same claims onbehalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during anextended class period, from November 27, 2006, through August 7,2008. On February 24, 2009, the Court issued an Orderconsolidating the two cases and appointing a lead plaintiffpursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On May 15, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,and on June 29, 2009, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss thatAmended Complaint. On March 5, 2010, the Court granted theCompany's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice, permitting the leadplaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. On March 26, 2010, thelead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, andthe Company subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss. OnMarch 16, 2011, the Court granted the Company's Motion anddismissed the complaint without prejudice. On May 5, 2011, thelead plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint, and the Companyagain filed a Motion to Dismiss. On November 21, 2011, the Courtgranted the Company's Motion and dismissed the case withprejudice. On December 19, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed aNotice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company and its insurance carrier have agreed with the leadplaintiff on the final terms of a settlement. The settlementprovides for a full release and dismissal of all claims assertedagainst all defendants in the litigation and the appeal, inexchange for payment of $1.4 million by the Company's insurancecarrier. The settlement is subject to court approval followingnotice to the potential class members. The Court of Appealsdismissed the appeal on June 25, 2012, and the case has beenreturned to the district court for the approval process. Thedistrict court has approved the application for preliminaryapproval of the settlement and the final approval hearing wasscheduled for November 9, 2012.

The Company continues to maintain the D&O and corporate liabilityinsurance covering certain risks associated with securities claimsfiled against the Company or its directors and officers, withinsurance from multiple carriers, each insuring a different layerof exposure, up to a total of $50 million. The Company hasaccrued for liabilities equal to the financial deductible of theCompany's D&O policy for the period covering the time the classaction lawsuit for this matter was filed. Other than accruing forthe Company's financial deductible, the Company has not recordedany significant accruals for contingent liabilities associatedwith this matter based on its belief that a liability in excess ofits insurance coverage, while possible, is not probable.

NextWave Wireless Inc. is a holding company for a significantwireless spectrum portfolio. Its continuing operations arefocused on the management of its wireless spectrum interests. TheCompany's total domestic spectrum holdings consist ofapproximately 3.9 billion MHz POPs. The term "MHz-POPs" isdefined as the product derived from multiplying the number ofmegahertz associated with a license by the population of thelicense's service area. The Company is headquartered in SanDiego, California.

NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits-----------------------------------------------------------NextWave Wireless Inc. entered into a memorandum of understandingto settle merger-related class action lawsuits, according to theCompany's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September29, 2012.

On August 1, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Planof Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with AT&T Inc., a Delawarecorporation ("AT&T") and Rodeo Acquisition Sub Inc., a Delawarecorporation and a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T ("MergerSub"). Under the terms and subject to the conditions set forth inthe Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into theCompany, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporationand a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T (the "Merger").

On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed inthe Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against theCompany, AT&T, Merger Sub, Allen Salmasi, Douglas F. Manchester,Jack Rosen, Nadar Tavakoli, Carl E. Vogel and William H. Websteralleging, among other things, that the Company's board ofdirectors and certain of its executive officers breached variousfiduciary duties in connection with the board of directors'approval of the proposed Merger and that the Company, AT&T andMerger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciaryduties. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief preventing theMerger, an order rescinding the proposed Merger in the event it isnot enjoined, and damages as a result of the alleged actions ofthe defendants, including attorneys' and experts' fees (the "WeissAction"). Subsequently, on September 6, 2012, two additionalcomplaints were filed in the Superior Court of California, Countyof San Diego by Thomas Juzwik and Elias Rodriguez against theCompany, AT&T, Merger Sub, Allen Salmasi, Jack Rosen, WilliamWebster, Douglas F. Manchester, Robert Symington, Frank Cassou andFrancis Harding, containing substantially similar allegations tothose set forth in the Weiss Action. The Juzwik, Rodriquez andWeiss actions are collectively referred to as the actions.

In order to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent inlitigation and to allow stockholders to vote on the proposal toadopt the Merger Agreement at the scheduled special meeting, theCompany and the other defendants entered into a memorandum ofunderstanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") with plaintiffs'counsel on September 20, 2012, in connection with the actions,pursuant to which the Company, the other named defendants and theplaintiffs have agreed to settle the actions subject to courtapproval. If the Delaware court approves the settlement, theWeiss action will be dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiffsin the Juzwik and Rodriquez actions will dismiss their complaintsbased on the settlement of the Weiss action. The Companycontinues to maintain the directors and officers and corporateliability insurance covering certain risks associated withsecurities claims filed against the Company or its directors andofficers with insurance from multiple carriers, each insuring adifferent layer of exposure, up to a total of $50 million. TheCompany has accrued for liabilities equal to the financialdeductible of the Company's D&O policy for the period covering thetime the class action lawsuit for this matter was filed. Otherthan accruing for the Company's financial deductible, the Companyhas not recorded any significant accruals for contingentliabilities associated with this matter based on its belief that aliability in excess of its insurance coverage, while possible, isnot probable.

NextWave Wireless Inc. is a holding company for a significantwireless spectrum portfolio. Its continuing operations arefocused on the management of its wireless spectrum interests. TheCompany's total domestic spectrum holdings consist ofapproximately 3.9 billion MHz POPs. The term "MHz-POPs" isdefined as the product derived from multiplying the number ofmegahertz associated with a license by the population of thelicense's service area. The Company is headquartered in SanDiego, California.

By settling the matter Nufarm avoids drawn-out legal action anddoes not admit any fault. The money will be split amongshareholders.

Justice John Middleton of the Federal Court in Melbourne approvedthe settlement on Nov. 28.

The law firms Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon started theclass action in 2011 on behalf of more than 700 shareholders,including mum and dad investors. Shareholders alleged Nufarm'sprofit forecast of between AUD110 million and AUD130 million for2009-10 was misleading and deceptive. Shares dropped from AUD5.35to AUD3.25 in one week after the company halved the profitguidance to between AUD55 million and AUD65 million.

The Slater & Gordon lawyer Odette McDonald said the outcome was a"great result for shareholders".

"It really means a significant reduction in legal costs and abigger return for those investors seeking to recoup lost funds",she said.

In August the Nufarm chairman, Donald McGauchie, said the boardhad "carefully considered risks and costs associated with aprotracted litigation, and demand on management's time as thecompany implements its strategic growth plans".

It originally agreed to settle for AUD43.5 million but thisincreased to AUD46.6 million after more shareholders joined theaction. A trial was scheduled to start in September 2013.

The AUD43.5 million was booked as a material item in Nufarm's2011-12 accounts. The extra AUD3.1 million will be reported inthe current financial year.

After two months of mediation, the Manor residents' steeringcommittee broke off negotiations and has served notice it willfile a class-action suit in Jackson County Circuit Court askingfor $30 million because of what it claims are excessive managementcharges by PRS.

Residents of the retirement community have been at odds with theManor's corporate parent for months, saying that PRS and its boardhave exceeded their authority and removed virtually all decision-making power from the Rogue Valley Manor's own board.

Manor residents, who overwhelmingly endorsed the legal action,rapidly raised a legal war chest of hundreds of thousands ofdollars late last summer.

In a 50-page draft complaint, residents seek removal of PRScontrol over the Manor; rescission of an Aug. 24 bylaws amendmentthat reduced the Rogue Valley Manor board from nine to threemembers; and reinstatement of dismissed Manor board members orappointment of an independent board that cannot be appointed orremoved by PRS.

They also are asking the court to give the Rogue Valley Manorboard the right to select the community's executive director andfor the return of Kevin McLoughlin to that role. Further, theresidents request an accounting of "excessive management andrelated fees collected by PRS" and action to prevent PRS fromtransferring or dissipating the Manor's assets.

In August, after a judge declined to intervene on residents'behalf, Mr. McLoughlin was fired from his post and PRS dismissedseven of nine Manor board members. PRS Chief Operating OfficerMike Morris assumed Mr. McLoughlin's duties on an interim basis.

The dispute first arose over concerns by Manor residents that theywere being charged excessive fees to cover expenses related to PRSproperties beyond the Manor. PRS operates 10 retirementfacilities in five states as well as other operations, including ahotel and two golf courses in Medford. The Manor residents saythat when PRS was established, it was agreed that managementservices would be charged at a break-even rate, with no profits toPRS.

During an hour-plus session with several hundred Manor residents,Portland attorney David Markowitz said the concerns over excessivefees were justified.

"The prior board's investigation, and the investigation by my lawoffice and our forensic accountant, all demonstrate that there aresignificant profits being made by PRS on its management fees forits governance over the Rogue Valley Manor," Mr. Markowitz said ina video of the meeting that was made available to the MailTribune. "We have alleged . . . it is an amount in excess of $1million a year that has continued for years and years and years.Some years, in excess of $1.5 million of profit that has been usedby PRS not for the benefit of Rogue Valley Manor but in order tofund its ventures elsewhere, including its losses that it hassustained in its for-profit failed activities or failingactivities elsewhere."

Residents raised five issues as they began a series of mediationefforts with PRS officers that ended Nov. 16. The issues havebeen boiled down to three: PRS' governance, its fees and how ithandles the money, and Mr. McLoughlin's future.

"I'm disappointed that no agreement has been met," Mr. Markowitzsaid.

Mike Morris, who was in attendance for at least part of themeeting, told residents PRS intended to present its side of thematter within two weeks.

"There will be additional information beyond what is discussedhere," Mr. Morris said. "We look forward to very open discussionand being able to hear both sides."

After PRS dismissed dissident Manor board members this summer,residents are seeking assurances that their board would have someauthority. But Mr. Markowitz said that is not acceptable to PRS.

"Most importantly they want to retain absolute control of theboard," Mr. Markowitz said. "Not only selection of the nine(board members), but in the ability to terminate."

While Manor residents are pressing PRS on several issues, theyseem most upset over the dismissal of Mr. McLoughlin, who wassummarily fired in August and told not to set foot on PRS propertyafter he cleaned out his office.

"You would think that if we could get a truly independent boardthat wouldn't be subject to termination then that board couldrehire whoever they wanted for an executive director," Mr.Markowitz said. "But PRS so far has said no, which is why so manyof our group is pessimistic of the governance issue ever beingresolved. Because they (PRS) want to maintain that ultimatecontrol over decision making."

The biggest issue leading to the lawsuit, Mr. Markowitz said, waswhether Mr. McLoughlin would be returned to his position.

"What we've been told repeatedly is that Kevin will not bereturned voluntarily," Mr. Markowitz said. "The way we put it inthe last meeting, if you had to choose between a lawsuit betweenthe Rogue Valley Manor residents and (rehiring) Kevin, which wouldyou choose, PRS? They chose the lawsuit. This issue is the one wecan find no compromise, no give, no change in PRS' position."

It remains unclear why Mr. McLoughlin was removed, but Mr.Markowitz told the residents that the PRS board was not involvedin the dismissal.

"The PRS board continues, we believe, to not know why Kevin'ssupervisor fired him and they refuse to talk to Kevin," Mr.Markowitz said.

"Those of you who have been involved in business in your lifeunderstand that personnel decisions are very confidential innature," said Mr. Morris, who is the son-in-law of former PRSChief Executive Officer Tom Becker. "The likelihood of havingfull disclosure of the details of an employee's termination wouldneed to come from the employee directly and not from theemployer."

Pressed by a noticeably hostile crowd, he defended the firingwithout revealing details. He did say the termination was notsolely the decision of PRS Chief Executive Officer Brian McLemore.

"The decision to make personnel changes is never a unilateraldecision in our organization, it's never made by one individual,"Mr. Morris said. "It is reviewed by our human resourcesdepartment and our legal department. In this case it is reviewedby a team of professionals to make that decision."

Ultimately, the Manor residents were told by their attorneys, theonly way Rogue Valley Manor residents will get their way is ifthey prevail in court.

"We recognize litigation is difficult and not their first choice,but it's their only choice for the independence they are entitledto at this point," said Shannon Armstrong, also an attorney withMarkowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf.

PARKLANE FINANCIAL: Edwin Harris Among Defendants in Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------------Bruce Erskine, writing for Herald Business, reports that McInnesCooper tax lawyer Edwin Harris has been named in a C$144-millionclass action certified by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

She also alleged that Mr. Harris was "engaged by ParkLane toassist in documentation for the program" and provided the companywith legal opinions.

The class action alleges the gift program was a fraud and/or itwas in breach of provincial consumer protection legislation. Thelawsuit also says class action members are entitled to rescindtheir agreements and have the money they paid to participate inthe program refunded.

None of the allegations have been proven in court and all of thedefendants have denied liability in the case.

Mr. Harris, a former Dalhousie University law teacher and formerchair of the Canadian Tax Foundation, worked at Patterson Kitz(Halifax) in 2005 before it merged with McInnes Cooper in 2006.He was not available for comment on Nov. 27.

But McInnes Cooper general counsel John Kulik --john.kulik@mcinnescooper.com -- said the firm will continue tofight the class action, which has already withstood appeal motionsby the defendants.

According to Paliare Roland and co-class action counsel, LandyMarr Kats LLP, ParkLane offered the gift program as a charitabletax shelter opportunity sold to Canadians through financialadvisers.

Program participants were allegedly told that for every $2,500donation they made, a Canadian charity would receive $10,000 andthe donor would receive a charitable tax receipt for $10,000.

The action alleges the charities kept one per cent or less of theamount for which they issued receipts. It also alleges the restwas used to pay the program's promoters and to purchase a royaltyagreement that enabled the charity to receive an interest in apossible revenue stream to be generated by a computer softwareprogram trading futures contracts on a highly leveraged basis.

Ms. Waddell, who suggested it will be next summer before it willbe determined if the case is ready to go to trial, said most ofthe money paid into the program is offshore.

The class action includes any person who participated inParkLane's Donations for Canada Charitable Gift Program whileresiding in Canada between Jan. 1, 2005, and Dec. 31, 2009,excluding persons immediately associated with or related to thedefendants.

PEPPERIDGE FARM: Sued Over Cheddar Goldfish Crackers Advertising----------------------------------------------------------------Patricia Calhoun, writing for Denver Westword, reports that Aspenresident Sonya Bolerjack had filed a class-action complaintagainst Pepperidge Farm, Inc., in United States District Court,District of Colorado, charging that its Cheddar Goldfish BakedSnack Crackers are not "natural," as advertised on the package.Here's the start of that suit, on view below in its entirety:

1. Defendant has made false, misleading statements that arelikely to deceive reasonable consumers. Defendant has mistakenlyor misleadingly represented that its Cheddar Goldfish crackers(the "Product") are "Natural," when, in fact, they are not,because they contain Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in theform of soy and/or soy derivatives.

2. Defendant's "Natural" statement prominently displayed onthe Product's packaging and/or labeling is false, misleading, andlikely to deceive reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiff andmembers of the Class, because the Product is not "Natural," due tothe presence of soybean oil in the Product."

3. GMOs are plants that grow from seeds in which DNA splicinghas been used to place genes from another source into a plant.Contrary to Defendants's express or implied representations, theProduct uses plants or plant derivatives grown or created fromGMOs."

There's more, of course, but it all adds up to the fact thatMs. Bolerjack believes she, and any other plaintiffs who sign onto this action, deserve $5 million in compensation from PepperidgeFarm.

REGIONS FINANCIAL: Securities Suit in Ala. Stayed Pending Review----------------------------------------------------------------A purported class-action lawsuit in Alabama has been stayedpending an appellate court review of the order granting classcertification, according to the Company's November 5, 2012, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In October 2010, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed byRegions' stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Alabama against Regions and certain former officers ofRegions. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securitieslaws, including allegations that statements that were materiallyfalse and misleading were included in filings made with the SEC.The plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecifiedmonetary damages. On June 7, 2011, the trial court deniedRegions' motion to dismiss this lawsuit. On June 14, 2012, thetrial court granted class certification. The Eleventh CircuitCourt of Appeals is reviewing the trial court's grant of classaction certification. The case is now stayed pending that review.

REGIONS FINANCIAL: Funds-Related Class Suit Deal Not Yet Approved-----------------------------------------------------------------Beginning in December 2007, Regions Financial Corporation andcertain of its affiliates have been named in class-action lawsuitsfiled in federal and state courts on behalf of investors whopurchased shares of certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds(the "Funds") and shareholders of Regions. These cases have beenconsolidated into class-actions and shareholder derivative actionsfor the open-end and closed-end Funds. The Funds were formerlymanaged by Regions Investment Management, Inc. ("RegionsInvestment Management"). Regions Investment Management no longermanages these Funds, which were transferred to Hyperion BrookfieldAsset Management ("Hyperion") in 2008. Certain of the Funds havesince been terminated by Hyperion. The complaints contain variousallegations, including claims that the Funds and the defendantsmisrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating tothe activities of the Funds. Plaintiffs have requested equitablerelief and unspecified monetary damages. These cases are invarious stages and no classes have been certified. Settlementdiscussions are ongoing in certain cases, and the parties havereached a preliminary settlement in the closed-end Funds class-action and the shareholder derivative case. Certain of theshareholders in these Funds and other interested parties haveentered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims,in lieu of participating in the class actions. The lawsuits andproceedings related to the Funds are subject to theindemnification agreement with Raymond James Financial Inc.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 5,2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In September 2009, Regions was named as a defendant in a purportedclass-action lawsuit filed by customers of Regions Bank in theU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgiachallenging the manner in which non-sufficient funds and overdraftfees were charged and the policies related to posting order. Thecase was transferred to multidistrict litigation in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and in May2010 an order to compel arbitration was denied. Regions appealedthe denial and on April 29, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit Court ofAppeals vacated the denial and remanded the case to the districtcourt for reconsideration of Regions' motion to compelarbitration. On September 1, 2011, the trial court again deniedRegions' motion to compel arbitration. Regions again appealed thedenial to the Eleventh Circuit, which on March 5, 2012, grantedthe motion and ordered that the case be dismissed. Plaintiffsfiled a motion for rehearing by the full court of appeals, whichwas denied on April 30, 2012. Plaintiffs petitioned forcertiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, but their petition wasdenied on October 9, 2012. Another purported class-actionalleging these claims was filed in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of Georgia in January 2012. The case is stillearly in its development and no class has been certified.Plaintiffs in these cases have requested equitable relief andunspecified monetary damages.

SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Units to Seek to End Humboldt Suit Injunction-----------------------------------------------------------------Subsidiary defendants anticipate petitioning to end their agreed-upon injunction in the Humboldt County Action, according to theCompany's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September30, 2012.

In connection with the September 2010 settlement of certain classaction litigation against Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. andcertain of its subsidiaries related to, among other matters,alleged understaffing at certain California skilled nursingfacilities operated by Skilled's subsidiaries (the "HumboldtCounty Action"), Skilled and its defendant subsidiaries(collectively, the "Defendants") entered into settlementagreements with the applicable plaintiffs and agreed to aninjunction. The settlement was approved by the Superior Court ofCalifornia, Humboldt County, on November 30, 2010. Under theterms of the settlement agreements, the defendant entitiesdeposited a total of $50.0 million into escrow accounts to coversettlement payments to class members, notice and claimsadministration costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs andcertain other payments, including $5.0 million to settle certaingovernment agency claims and potential government claims that mayarise. Of the $5.0 million provided for such government claims,$1.0 million has been released by the court to the Humboldt CountyTreasurer-Tax Collector on behalf of the People of the State ofCalifornia for their release of the Defendants. The remaining$4.0 million is available for the settlement and releases by theCalifornia Attorney General and certain other District Attorneys.However, in the event that any of these government authoritiesinstead file certain actions against the Defendants by the secondanniversary of the effective date of the settlement agreement,which will occur in February 2013, the entire $4.0 million willrevert to the Defendants upon their request to the SettlementAdministrator.

In addition to the $1.0 million paid to the Humboldt CountyTreasurer-Tax Collector on behalf of the People of the State ofCalifornia, the court also approved payments from the escrow of upto approximately $24.8 million for attorneys' fees and costs and$10,000 to each of the three named plaintiffs. In addition,approximately $9.3 million of settlement proceeds have beendistributed from the escrow to approximately 3,900 of an estimated43,000 class members. Pursuant to the injunction, the twenty-twoDefendants that operate California nursing facilities must providespecified nurse staffing levels, comply with specified state andfederal laws governing staffing levels and posting requirements,and provide reports and information to a court-appointed auditor.The injunction will remain in effect for a period of twenty-fourmonths unless extended for additional three-month periods as tothose Defendants that may be found in violation. Defendantsdemonstrating compliance for an eighteen-month period that endedSeptember 30, 2012, may petition for early termination of theinjunction.

The Defendants are required to demonstrate over the term of theinjunction that the costs of the injunction meet a minimumthreshold level pursuant to the settlement agreement, which level,initially $9.6 million, is reduced by the portion attributable toany Defendant in the case that no longer operates a skillednursing facility during the injunction period. The injunctioncosts include, among other things, costs attributable to (i)enhanced reporting requirements; (ii) implementing advancedstaffing tracking systems; (iii) fees and expenses paid to anauditor and special master; (iv) increased labor and labor relatedexpenses; and (v) lost revenues attributable to admissiondecisions based on compliance with the terms and conditions of theinjunction. To the extent the costs of complying with theinjunction are less than the agreed upon threshold amount, theDefendants will be required to remit any shortfall to thesettlement fund. In April 2011, five of the subsidiary Defendantstransferred their operations to an unaffiliated third partyskilled nursing facility operator. The remaining subsidiaryDefendants continue to monitor their compliance with the terms ofthe injunction and to provide the applicable reports andinformation to the court-appointed auditor. Based upon compliancewith the injunction through the requisite eighteen-month periodended September 30, 2012, and expenditures exceeding the thresholdinjunction-related spend requirement, the subsidiary Defendantsanticipate petitioning to end the injunction as of September 30,2012.

In the course of ongoing communications with the CaliforniaAttorney General's Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud & Elder Abuse("BMFEA") related to the BMFEA matter, representatives of theCalifornia Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justicehave indicated their present interest in pursuing an action underthe False Claims Act and certain other legal theories based uponthe jury findings of understaffing in the Humboldt County Action.While the Company continues to cooperate with the government'sevaluation of the matter, the Company views the government'sapparent legal theories, including the False Claims Act theories,as lacking support in the established case law and intends tovigorously defend any such action if brought.

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Class Cert. Denial in Discrim. Suit Affirmed-----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in August2012 the denial of class certification in the lawsuit alleging agediscrimination, according to Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.'sNovember 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended September 27, 2012.

In December 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Spirit AeroSystems,Inc. ("Spirit"), Onex Corporation ("Onex") and The Boeing Companyalleging age discrimination in the hiring of employees by Spiritwhen Boeing sold its Wichita commercial division to Onex. Thecomplaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas andseeks class-action status, an unspecified amount of compensatorydamages and more than 1.5 billion dollars in punitive damages.The asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition requiresSpirit to indemnify Boeing for damages resulting from theemployment decisions that were made by the Company with respect toformer employees of Boeing Wichita, which relate or allegedlyrelate to the involvement of, or consultation with, employees ofBoeing in such employment decisions. On June 30, 2010, the U.S.District Court granted defendants' dispositive motions, findingthat the case should not be allowed to proceed as a class action.Following plaintiffs' appeal, on August 27, 2012, the TenthCircuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling inall respects.

In the event this litigation continues, the Company says itintends to continue to vigorously defend itself. Managementbelieves the resolution of this matter will not materially affectthe Company's financial position, results of operations orliquidity.

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Awaits Dismissal From "Harkness" Class Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. is awaiting a court ruling on amotion seeking dismissal of the Company from the class actionlawsuit styled Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al.,according to Spirit's November 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedSeptember 27, 2012.

On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. TheBoeing Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Kansas. The defendants were served in early July2007. The defendants include Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.,Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc.Retirement Plan for the International Brotherhood of ElectricalWorkers (IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and WichitaTechnical and Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and theSpirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Associationof Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along withBoeing and Boeing retirement and health plan entities. The namedplaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of whom wereor are employees of Spirit. The plaintiffs assert several claimsunder the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and generalcontract law and brought the case as a class action on behalf ofsimilarly situated individuals. The putative class consists ofapproximately 2,500 current or former employees of Spirit. Theparties agreed to class certification. The sub-class members whohave asserted claims against the Spirit entities are thoseindividuals who, as of June 2005, were employed by Boeing inWichita, Kansas, were participants in the Boeing pension plan, hadat least 10 years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were injobs represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55,and who went to work for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005.

Although there are many claims in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs'claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under varioustheories, are (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed todetermine that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early retirement"bridging rights" to pension and retiree medical benefits thatwere allegedly triggered by their separation from employment byBoeing and (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits wereunlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimedearly retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded theseindividuals as a result of their separation from Boeing, therebydecreasing their benefits. The plaintiffs initially sought adeclaration that they are entitled to the early retirement pensionbenefits and retiree medical benefits, an injunction ordering thatthe defendants provide the benefits, damages pursuant to breach ofcontract claims and attorney fees.

Discovery is now complete and currently pending is a motion filedjointly by plaintiffs and Spirit on September 25, 2012, to dismissall claims against Spirit with prejudice. Plaintiffs' claimsagainst Boeing entities are not subject to the motion and willremain pending in the litigation. Boeing has notified Spirit thatit believes it is entitled to indemnification from Spirit for any"indemnifiable damages" it may incur in the Harkness litigation,under the terms of the asset purchase agreement from the BoeingAcquisition between Boeing and Spirit. Spirit disputes Boeing'sposition on indemnity.

Management believes the resolution of this matter will notmaterially affect the Company's financial position, results ofoperations or liquidity.

The warning labels on the children's waterslide are inadequate forweight limit and fail to tell consumers never to slide head first.This poses a risk of serious injuries to consumers, including neckinjuries.

Sportspower has received one report of a man who received a neckinjury after sliding down the waterslide head first.

This recall involves Sportspower Liquid Motion waterslides.Consumers inflate the waterslide with air and spray it with waterfor sliding. They are used on the ground, not at the pool. Thewaterslides are blue and yellow and measure about 18 feet long by9 feet high by 5 feet wide. A "Liquid Motion by Sportspower" logois printed on the side. Recalled waterslides have item numberINF-1375 and UPC 687064031340 located on the packaging. Picturesof the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and soldexclusively at Menards Inc. from April 2010 through July 2010 forabout $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled waterslidesand contact Sportspower to receive new labels to affix to thewaterslide. The labels warn consumers not to use the waterslideif they are older than 13 years of age and/or weigh more than 100lbs. The labels also warn consumers never to slide head first.Sportspower may be reached toll-free at (888) 965-0565, from 9:00a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, online athttp://www.sportspowerltd.net/or e-mail customerservice@sportspowerltd.net for more information.

The trampoline's metal legs can move out of position and puncturethe jumping area, posing a risk of injury, including deep,penetrating puncture wounds, cuts and bruises to children andadults on the trampoline.

Sportspower is aware of one incident of the trampoline legseparating from the frame while in use, causing the leg topuncture through the jumping surface. No injuries have beenreported.

This recall involves Sportspower Parkside model TR-14FT-COMtrampolines. The trampolines are 14 feet in diameter and weresold with an enclosure net. The trampolines have blue or lightblue fabric on the safety matting and enclosure pole sleeves. Themodel number is marked on the packaging and instruction manual."Parkside" is printed on the enclosure net. A picture of therecalled products is available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and soldexclusively at Sports Authority stores nationwide from April 2007through May 2012 for about $540.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled trampolinesand contact Sportspower to receive a free repair kit. Sportspowermay be reached toll-free at (888) 965-0565, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, online athttp://www.sportspowerltd.net/or e-mail customerservice@sportspowerltd.net for more information.

SUKHI'S GOURMET: Recalls Red Curry Veggies Over Undeclared Shrimp-----------------------------------------------------------------Sukhi's Gourmet Indian Foods is alerting customers that because ofa label error, a single lot code of Red Curry with Vegetablescontains undeclared shrimp. Consumers who have an allergy orsevere sensitivity to shrimp, run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. Noillnesses have been reported in connection to this product. Noother products from Sukhi's have been impacted.

Sukhi's is voluntarily recalling Lot code 3390113612 with a Use-ByDate of 5/14/2013 with a UPC code: 7-67226-02901-6

The product was shipped to distributers in California, Texas,Minnesota and Georgia, between the dates of 5/21/2012 and10/15/2013. A picture of the recalled products is available at:

Sukhi's became aware of the error, after receiving a customercomplaint. Investigation into the complaint confirmed that someboxes of a single lot of Red Curry and Vegetables inadvertentlycontained Yellow Curry with Shrimp. No illnesses have beenreported in connection with this product.

Consumers who have purchased product with this lot code shouldreturn the product to the store where it was purchased to receivea replacement or a refund.

TIME WARNER: Appeal From "Fink" Suit Dismissal Remains Pending--------------------------------------------------------------On August 7, 2009, the plaintiffs in Jessica Fink and Brett Noia,et al. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., filed an amended complaint in apurported class action in the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York alleging that the Company uses a throttlingtechnique which intentionally delays and/or blocks a user's high-speed data service. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecifiedmonetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. OnDecember 23, 2011, the district court granted with prejudice theCompany's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amendedcomplaint. On January 23, 2012, the plaintiffs appealed thisdecision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. TheCompany says it intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously,but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonablyestimate a range of possible loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 5,2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

TIME WARNER: Appeal in Set-Top Cable Antitrust MDL Pending----------------------------------------------------------Time Warner Cable Inc. is the defendant in In re: Set-Top CableTelevision Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actionsfiled in federal district courts throughout the U.S. Theseactions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Ordertransferring the cases for pretrial proceedings to the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York. OnJuly 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidatedclass action complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"), allegingthat the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,various state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive tradepractices statutes by tying the sales of premium cable televisionservices to the leasing of set-top converter boxes. Theplaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treblemonetary damages and an injunction to cease such allegedpractices. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion todismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted onApril 8, 2011. On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed thisdecision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 5,2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuitvigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuitor reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

TIME WARNER: Sup. Ct. Review of "Brantley" Suit Dismissal Sought----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Brantley, et al. v. NBCUniversal, Inc., et al., have filed a petition for review with theU.S. Supreme Court of the dismissal of their class action lawsuit,according to Time Warner Cable Inc.'s November 5, 2012, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended September 30, 2012.

On September 20, 2007, Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., etal. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central Districtof California against the Company. The complaint, which alsonamed as defendants several other cable and satellite providers(collectively, the "distributor defendants") as well asprogramming content providers (collectively, the "programmerdefendants"), alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of theSherman Antitrust Act. Among other things, the complaint allegedcoordination between and among the programmer defendants to selland/or license programming on a "bundled" basis to the distributordefendants, who in turn purportedly offer that programming tosubscribers in packaged tiers, rather than on a per channel (or "ala carte") basis. The plaintiffs, who seek to represent apurported nationwide class of cable and satellite subscribers, areseeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damagesand an injunction to compel the offering of channels tosubscribers on an "a la carte" basis. In an order dated October15, 2009, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' thirdamended complaint with prejudice. OnOctober 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On March 30, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuitaffirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' lawsuitand, on May 4, 2012, denied the plaintiffs' petition for arehearing en banc. On August 2, 2012, the plaintiffs filed apetition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Company saysit intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but isunable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonablyestimate a range of possible loss.

TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Downs" Suit vs. Insight---------------------------------------------------------On August 9, 2010, the plaintiffs in Michelle Downs and LaurieJarrett, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. filed asecond amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for theWestern District of Kentucky, as a purported class action,alleging that Insight Communications Company, L.P., a subsidiaryof Time Warner Cable Inc., violated Section 1 of the ShermanAntitrust Act by tying the sales of premium cable televisionservices to the leasing of set-top converter boxes, which issimilar to the federal claim against the Company in In re: Set-TopCable Television Box Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs areseeking, among other things, unspecified treble monetary damagesand an injunction to cease such alleged practices. The Companysays it intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but isunable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonablyestimate a range of possible loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 5,2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

VISA: Majority of Class Plaintiffs to Appeal Settlement Ruling--------------------------------------------------------------National Cooperative Grocers Association disclosed that onNov. 27, 2012, a majority of named class plaintiffs filed a noticeof appeal to challenge a ruling from the U.S. District Court forthe Eastern District of New York granting preliminary approval toa proposed settlement of a long-standing antitrust class actionfiled by merchants against Visa, MasterCard and the largest banks.The merchant group will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for theSecond Circuit to deny preliminary approval due to the legaldefects in the proposed settlement.

More than 1,200 merchants have weighed in with the courts inopposition to the settlement on the grounds that it locks in thebroken interchange system, deprives merchants of their right tofight the anticompetitive practices of the Visa, MasterCardduopoly in court, and constrains innovations that could bringcompetition to the marketplace, such as mobile technology.

"This settlement has fatal legal defects and should not getpreliminary approval. We look forward to presenting the problemswe see in this proposal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,"said Jeffrey Shinder, managing partner at Constantine Cannon, LLC,counsel to the merchants objecting to the proposed settlement.

"The merchant community is deeply committed to reforms that bringtransparency and competition to the broken electronic paymentsmarket. The volume and diversity of those objecting to thisflawed proposal is remarkable and continues to grow," saidMr. Shinder.

According to Dow Jones Newswires' Andrew R. Johnson, the objectingplaintiffs specifically said in their notice they take issue witha portion of the order that enjoins merchants "from challenging inany action or proceeding any matter covered by" the settlementagreement, which has been a sticking point for critics who say thedeal gives overly broad releases from future litigation to thepayments networks.

Critics including Home Depot Inc. (HD) and the NationalAssociation of Convenience Stores, one of the objectingplaintiffs, have also taken issue with a provision that doesn'tallow merchants to opt out of rule changes that Visa andMasterCard agreed to make two months after the settlement gainedpreliminary approval.

"We are 100% attacking through this appeal what we feel to be theheart and soul of this settlement, and that is the way thesettlement improperly deprives merchants of their due processrights through the injunction and the mandatory class,"Mr. Shinder said in an interview.

Bob Stolebarger, a partner with Bryan Cave LLP and antitrustcounsel to the Electronic Payments Coalition, which representspayments networks and banks, said the objecting plaintiffs arelimited in their ability to appeal all of Judge Gleeson'spreliminary approval order, citing case law. The move also shouldnot "hinder or delay proceedings at the district court level,"Mr. Stolebarger said.

The settlement would allow Visa, MasterCard and several card-issuing banks including Bank of America Corp. and J.P. MorganChase & Co. to put to bed litigation brought against them bymerchants in 2005, accusing the companies of conspiring over feesretailers pay to accept credit cards, called interchange or swipefees.

Visa and MasterCard set the fees, which are collected as revenueby the banks that issue the payments networks' cards.

The deal has reignited a long-standing battle between merchantsand the payments industry, with some retailers arguing that thedeal will solidify practices by Visa and MasterCard that have ledto rising interchange fees over the years rather than helpingmerchants control their costs.

Judge Gleeson said he was granting preliminary approval to thedeal at a court hearing on Nov. 9, and on Nov. 27 signed a formalorder doing so.

A spokesman for Visa declined to comment about the objectors'appeal plans on Nov. 27.

A spokesman for MasterCard referred to a Nov. 9 statement fromGeneral Counsel Noah Hanft, who said the settlement "represents asolution reached after years of litigation and months ofnegotiation."

Under the deal, merchants who opt in to the settlement stand toreceive payments totaling $6.05 billion. Visa and MasterCard havealso agreed to temporarily reduce interchange fees by an amountequal to $1.2 billion, and alter certain rules that merchants havecomplained about. Those rule changes, including the eliminationof a ban against surcharging customers who pay with credit cards,are set to take effect in two months.

Proponents of the deal have accused critics of embarking on asmear campaign against the settlement in hopes of drumming uppolitical support on Capitol Hill for potential legislation thatwould permanently limit credit-card swipe fees.

"If they were party to a settlement agreement . . . it would bevery, very hard for them to go up on the Hill" and garner supportfor legislation addressing the "interchange issue on the creditside in the same way that they did on the debit side with theDurbin amendment," Mr. Stolebarger said.

ZEEK REEWARDS: Former CEO Denies Ponzi Scheme Allegations---------------------------------------------------------Nash Dunn, writing for The Dispatch, reports that former ZeekChief Executive Officer Paul Burks said he denies allegations thathis company was a large Ponzi and pyramid scheme.

In a formal response filed on Nov. 26 in North Carolina BusinessCourt, Mr. Burks addressed a class-action lawsuit filed againsthim and his company in Davidson County in August. Going throughthe complaint paragraph by paragraph, Mr. Burks largely deniedallegations that he defrauded millions throughout the worldthrough unregistered offers and sales of securities through ZeekRewards and penny auction site Zeekler.com.

This is the first time Mr. Burks has directly addressedaccusations against his former company since mid-August, when hequickly settled securities fraud charges filed by the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission, without admitting or denyinganything. Mr. Burks, a Lexington resident, was forced to pay a $4million penalty and relinquish his reigns to the company. Thecase has since gone into receivership, and Charlotte attorneyKenneth Bell is actively pursuing what he estimates is hundreds ofmillions of dollars to eventually return to nearly 1 millionpeople who lost money in the alleged scheme.

The complaint Mr. Burks is now responding to is a separate class-action lawsuit filed by about 82 local Zeek Rewards affiliates onAug. 22. The lawsuit, targeted at Burks, Zeek Rewards, theprogram's parent company, Rex Venture Group, and profitinginvestors, seeks damages for all affiliates and demands a jurytrial. The lawsuit was originally filed in Davidson CountySuperior Court but was transferred to North Carolina BusinessCourt in October.

In his response filed Nov. 26, Mr. Burks denied nearly the entireoriginal complaint. The only things he admitted to included thathe is a citizen of Davidson County, that his former company wasshut down by the SEC, that Zeekler.com started in 2010 and allowedparticipants to purchase "bids," and that Zeek Rewards was createdin 2011 and that affiliates were able to join, among other things.

Mr. Burks requested to the court that the affiliates "have andrecover nothing," and that their complaint and claims be"dismissed with prejudice," according to the response. He alsorequested to the court that he recover his costs incurred in thelawsuit and that those costs and attorney's fees be taxed to theaffiliate claimants.

Mr. Burks also argued that the class-action suit be stayed. Inthe SEC case against Zeek Rewards, the original order appointingMr. Bell receiver imposed a "stay of litigation" for anylitigation related to the federal case. Mr. Burks, who filed amotion to stay the class-action lawsuit Oct. 4, reiterated in hisfiling Monday that the affiliates' lawsuit falls under thecategory of related litigation.

"Mr. Burks' response to the lawsuit against him is to hide behindthe receiver and blame the victims," said Lexington attorney CalCunningham, who represents the affiliates who filed the class-action lawsuit. "We are prepared to prove our case and haveproposed a cooperative arrangement with the receiver to do so. Welook forward to a lift of the stay that allows us to go forward."

Mr. Cunningham said if his party is able to work out anarrangement with the receiver in federal court, there won't be aneed to enter an order staying the lawsuit in state court. Whilehe could not discuss specifics of the arrangement, he said bothparties plan to target multiple categories of defendants.

Neither Mr. Burks nor his attorneys could be reached for commentthis week.

Zeek Rewards was one of the first penny auction-based companies topresent profit-sharing opportunities to its customers. Its users,or affiliates, essentially invested in the program by purchasinglarge quantities of bids for the penny auction site Zeekler.com,which was also operated by Rex Venture Group. To earn a profit,affiliates were required to give those bids away to new customersand post a daily advertisement for the site online. For buyingbids, giving them away and placing an ad, affiliates shared in thecompany's daily net profits through "rewards" -- bonuses theycould compile over time and eventually turn into cash.

Affiliates could also earn commissions with every friend, familymember or average Joe they signed up. The longer an affiliate's"downline," the more money there was to be made, something the SECcalled classic pyramid style.

The SEC, which issued a civil enforcement action against thecompany Aug. 17, alleges that the money from new Zeek Rewardsinvestors was simply financing the payouts for higher-upaffiliates. About 98 percent of Zeek Rewards' total revenues, andsubsequent payouts to its affiliates, were comprised of fundsreceived from new investors, according to the SEC's complaint.The SEC also alleged that affiliates' contributions requiredlittle or no effort, adding that they merely copy and pasted fakeads and used automated programs to give out bids.

Mr. Burks denied that allegation.

So far, Mr. Bell's investigation has identified about 2.2 millionunique Zeek Rewards users, and he says about 1 million of thoseusers invested money in the program.

While the majority of Zeek Rewards affiliates lost money,including some who sent in cashier's checks just hours before theSEC's action, others profited heavily. Mr. Bell estimates thatmore than 100,000 affiliates made money on the program.

Mr. Bell sent out more than 1,200 subpoenas to affiliates who"took out more than they put in" in November, asking theprofiteers to surrender their gains or face legal action.

Mr. Bell also filed a motion to intervene in a federal class-action lawsuit filed in Louisiana on Aug. 24, seeking to stay thelawsuit and have it transferred to federal court in Charlotte.That lawsuit also targeted Zeek Rewards, Burks and Rex VentureGroup.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapmanat 240/629-3300.